Share

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://russianforces.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/428

References to this entry

In the July 2007 START treaty data exchange, Russia gave submarines of the Project 955 class, also known as Borey, yet another name - the treaty designation of this class will be "Kasatka". If adding one more name seems confusing...

The first submarine of the Project 955 Borey class, Yury Dolgoruky, was finally launched today at the Sevmash plant in Severodvinsk. One launch ceremony has already taken place - on April 15, 2007 - but the submarine was left in...

Comments

No. Pursuing parity with the US is senseless. It is necessary just to have a small, highly efficient SSBN fleet with the purpose of “minimum assured deterrence”. Any over sizing is just waste of money. Two vessels in patrols all time are enough. Therefore, with just 8-10 SSBN will be enough.

I think 2 boats on patrol is really very little. At least 4 are needed. 2 subs can carry max 40 SLBM's (depending on type SSBN). In case of a real first strike from the US the only capable forces for a retaliation would be the subs, and maybe even a half of the SLBM could be shot down by the missle defense in california and alaska, and soon europe.

kubo:
You need to be realistic,4 submarines isn't needed because war between USA and Russia will never happen. Even without submarines russia will be able to destroy USA with ss-18 and topol-m missiles.

The announced plan is for 8 Boreis by 2017, the more realistic number is 5. The second ship wont be finished until sometime in 2009 according to the MoD. If they actually have 8-10 boomers at the end of the day that does not mean they will only have 2 on patrol.

The typical way navies that arent cash strapped work is 1 ship in 3 on patrol. That means 3 boomers on patrol is very realistic with an 8-10 ship fleet. That is sufficient even for those who believe 2 is not enough.

They currently have 12 boomers nominally in service. What good has that been when only 1 has been on patrol most of the time (I recognize that lately they've gotten that # up to 2 according to Ivanov at least)? Less ships is better if it means more of them will actually be on patrol.

5-8 Boreis is also a hell of a lot better than what any fleet besides the American fleet is going to field in this century

There is no evidence that the Chinese have plans for 8-10 boomers. The one they have is by all accounts a failed project, though what we know of it is basically nothing.

There is no evidence that they seek parity with Russia, let alone the US, in this category. It would be nice if the Chinese would be at least as open as the Russians about their shipbuilding plans. But until we have reports of keel layings I'd be skeptical. These ships are billion dollar blackholes and the Chinese have not prioritized strategic missile systems in the way Moscow has.

Oh, and before you jump in with it -- I know that the 094 was lauched in 2004. But its still in sea trials (in fact some reports say it only started real sea trials this year). Reports of additional keels have not surfaced and the JL-2 is more delayed than Bulava. It isnt clear if it will be out of development even by 2010.

Now it's official 8 SSBNs are gona be built and it is eight not four five or six they are part of the new massive rearmamant plan they can't cancel any ship,it would be a blow for the Navy's and the country's credibility,Vincent China has no reliable SSBN we know off and probably won't for VERY long,it takes a lot of time to design and built a new generation of SSBN,look at Britain, they are deciding today what to build in 20+ years.China is far far behind the leading powers US Russia UK France.

My wager would be only five or so Borey-class submarines will be constructed. This number is dependent on whether the “Yuri Dolgoruki” will develop as a full-mission submarine or be retained as only a “trials” boat. If the “Alexander Nevsky” is really the first production vessel of this class, I suspect four additional submarines will be built after her. I think the goal of the Kremlin is to always have a ballistic missile submarine on patrol and to achieve that goal, the Russian Navy will require at least five submarines. I think the decision to end basing such submarines in the Pacific and concentrate all SLBM submarines in the Northern Fleet is indicative of such a policy change. I would also think after the last Borey-class submarine is manufactured, a successor will be in design. Previous Soviet thinking has always precluded long production runs in its submarines and I suspect the current Russian thinking in the Admiralty is no different.

Very interesting read. This is the first indication I’ve seen that the Russianized SS-N-23 Sineva carries ten warheads. Do we have confirmation from a second source? Any idea of warhead payload and specifications?

[The Delta IV submarines are equipped with new Sineva SLBMs, a modified version of SS-N-23. In contrast to its predecessor, which carried four warheads, Sineva is equipped with ten. The first Delta IV submarine scheduled to receive Sineva missiles is “Tula”, which will be ready to receive the missiles in 2007.]

I don't know where this "Sineva is equipped with ten warheads" stuff comes from. START MOU list SS-N-23 as carrying four warheads. Moreover, it has always been listed with four, which, if I remember START Treaty correctly, means that it cannot be deployed with ten - the treaty prohibits increasing the number of warheads on missiles.

on the wmdinsight page is an older article about SLBM-tests stating that the Sineva has four warheads like Paval says, so the guys of this page seems to be a little confused.

Two more questions that don´t really fit here, but anyhow:
Yesterday a R-36M (Dnepr) launched from Baikonur to bring 14 small satellites for different scientific costumers into orbit. Anyone knows if it was the R-36MUTTH or M2 version? Is the M2 used as Dnepr at all?

And another quastion regarding NMD: As I know the ABM-treaty allowed deployment of 100 ABM missiles? At the moment the US plans to install maybe 50 or so (10 in Poland and some more in Kodiak), so what was the need for the US to leave the treaty? Do they want to install more than 100 missiles in the near future or was there another technical reason?

The original previsions of the ABM Treaty (1972) called for a single missile system of not more than 100 interceptors with only one tracking & guidance radar system and could only be used to protect either a host countries’ ICBM field or its national capital. The US went ahead with the Safeguard System to protect its Minuteman ICBM arsenal and the Soviet Union installed its system to protect Moscow. The provisions that the caused the United States to withdrew from the treaty had as much to do with restrictions on testing ABM radars and various kinetic interceptors as much as it had to do with interceptor missile limits. Also, the Pentagon changed its perception on what was needed as the emphasis changed from shielding our ICBM force with a nuclear ABM system to protecting American cities with a conventional missile defense. A system like the original Safeguard System located in North Dakota USA could not defend the total United States. After trying for several years to modify the 1972 treaty unsuccessfully, the United States exercised its legal options under the treaty to end compliance.

Hi Frank Shuler, nice to talk again.
It was said that
"My wager would be only five or so Borey-class submarines will be constructed. This number is dependent on whether the “Yuri Dolgoruki” will develop as a full-mission submarine or be retained as only a “trials” boat"

I am confused by that thinking.
Why you believe that the first new SSBN Yuri Dolgoruki could be only a trial boat.
Was a trial boat different from an operational boat?

I doubt the Yuri Dolgoruky will be just a trial boat. It was very expensive just to use as a test bed. Such a use will raise the most expensive “test bed” of the world. It will be a fully operational SSBN but just with 12 SLBM tubes. This will be basically the only the difference with the rest of Borey.
Furthermore, the Navy already have a trial boat: the Dimitry Donskoy.

My thinking about the “Yuri Dolgoruky” is only based on the long time of naval construction and the many design modifications needed for the R-30 Bulava. While I completely agree using this submarine as a trial boat would be expensive, such an investment by the Russian Navy would be wise. To have such a resource for crew training alone would make this submarine invaluable. To have such a boat for sonar & communication testing on top of weapons training would be important. This submarine will be able to teach the Russian Navy new submarine tactics, each new class does. I also think the “Yuri Dolgoruky” will be a very different submarine, internal equipment wise, from the Borey-class vessels to follow. There just have been too many naval design innovations since 1996.

I do think sometimes when we “amateurs” are evaluating such a warship as the “Yuri Dolgoruky” we tend to only look at the obvious. We want to know how many missiles such a submarine carriers; how may warheads, yields. However the military success of the new Borey-class will depend on much more. For example, how accurate is the delivered Bulava warhead? The answer to that question has as much to do with the internal navigation of the submarine itself as it does with the Bulava reentry vehicle (RV) hosting the warhead. It’s hard to hit a target on the other side of the world if you don’t know where you are at launch. Obviously, sonar is another key tool in submarine warfare. So much of modern sonar technology is embedded in the hull of the submarine itself that updating such hardware is extremely time consuming and enormously expensive after the fact. The combat information system (CIS), all the processing computers necessary to process threat information, cost a fortune and takes just as much time and money to develop as the ballistic missile the submarine is to host. One thing we all will agree on, the construction progress on the “Yuri Dolgoruky” will be fun to watch and offer much speculation.

I have no knowledge at all to the number of launch tubes on the “Yuri Dolgoruky” but it seems unlikely the number of such tubes could have been increased from the previously stated twelve to sixteen during the reconstruction (since 1996) of this submarine without an accompanying increase in hull length. There has been nothing in the official Russian press to suggest such a hull lengthening took place. If the boat was originally suppose to carry 16 SS-N-28 missiles, maybe the number of launchers had to be cut to twelve to handle the (larger?) Bulava?

That may be a pump jet on the back of the boat in the photos taken in the building..but it is not installed as of that photo. The photo shows a propellor shaft sticking out of or bulging on the tan coloured tarp. The pump jet is not installed because it is obvoius that the hull is not faired in flush in the back It is squared off where it meets the tarp. The back end of the boat is not complete. I know certain things about this boat just by looking at the rudder and stern planes configuration. It is obvioius.

You missed my point. Perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps the liquid fueled SS-N-28 missile system was originally supposed to be only 12 launchers and with the change to the Bulava system additional tubes could be remanufactured into the same hull dimensions resulting in the capacity to house 16 missiles. Why such discrepancies in “official” Russian press coverage of this submarine? Honestly, nobody really cares how many Bulava missiles the “Yuri Dolgoruky” carries, we’re just curious. Building a new class of strategic submarines with only twelve launchers has just always seemed a bit puzzling.

orangetom: dry-dock photos of the French SNLE-NG show a similar arrangement with the pumpjet already in place. Perhaps the pointy bit was still missing in those photos as well, but still... Similar pictures of the experimental pumpjet on the Russian trials SSK Alrosa also show a somewhat truncated hub behind the pumpjet.

In march 2006, in a déclaration, Mr S. Ivanov, then Defense minister, and Adm. Masorin were very affimative about the deployment of the second Borey in the Pacific fleet.
Reading your comments, and more precisely Mr Shuler's one (04/17/07), I understand this option is now obsolete. Do you really think that it would not stay any SSBN in the Pacific Fleet when all the Delta III are decommissioned ?

The Russian Navy has made the decision to concentrate all its strategic missile submarines in the Northern Fleet because that is the most secure area for their deterrent patrols. As reported by the Kremlin, each strategic SLBM boat is screened by two escorting nuclear fleet submarines to provide the best possible defense. Obviously, many Russian surface ships are also involved in screening the present Delta IVs, and later the Borey’s, as they deploy to sea as well. So, it’s not just the number of “boomers” alone that dictate how may SLBM submarines are patrolling at any given time. With limited resources, it just makes military sense to concentrate into a single operating base.

If fact, the French Navy is in the process of a similar decision. The SSBN force is organized under the Force Océanique Stratégique and homeported at the Île Longue base in Brest. Under a new reorganization plan, the navy will base all its submarines at Brest, including the nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) formerly at Toulon. A big military priority in the French Navy, just like in the Russian, is escorting its strategic missile submarines to sea by its nuclear “Amethyste” class fleet boats.

Of course all this is pure speculation to me but my conclusions seem to fit the facts. Any thoughts?

Frank it's the Rubis class, but the point is that each SSBN is escorted by 2 SSNs, the Triomphants SNLEd will be escorted by Barracudas SNAs, same for Boreis, the mistery remains WHO is gonna escort them ? "Yasens",not much has been heard from them for very long,we shall see.

Actually the French nuclear submarine “Amethyste” class is interesting naval history. As you so correctly stated the lead boat for the class was the S601 Rubis that went to sea in 1983. These nuclear fleet submarines were fast and had a small crew in comparison to contemporary submarines; however, they were noisy. In fact so noisy that it affected their combat capability. In 1992, the fifth ship of the class, the S605 Amethyste was launched after undergoing a complete hull redesign and modernization. This manufacturing process was so successful in solving the noise issue that the entire six submarines in the class were built and/or rebuilt to this new design specification and the class is now referred to as the Amethyste-class by the French Navy.

I completely agree with your assessment. If the Delta IV now, and the Borey in the future, needs escorting by at least two fleet boats on their deterrence patrol, Russia needs to immediately begin the design and building of the Akula-II’s replacement. I suspect the concentration of the SLBM fleet in the Northern Fleet had as much to do with the lack of nuclear fleet escort submarines as anything else.

The position of the fleet in the Arctic has to do I think with the strategic position of this Ocean that enables every SSBN to target any point in the Northern hemisphere with SLBMs,but you're possibly right, and thanks for the precisions on the transition from Rubis to Amethyste.

> Boreis, the mistery remains WHO is gonna escort them? "Yasens", not much has been heard from them for very long, we shall see.

- No, Project 885 'Yasen' ('Granay'), - is just a replacement for older (Project 949 Granat / Oscar I and Project 949A Antei / Oscar II). So, the 'Yasen', - is a powerful sub of 'aircraft-carrier-killer' class. Both 'Granat / Antei' and 'Yasen', carry 12 supersonic cruise missiles in _dedicated launchers_ as well as they both, have a conventional torpedo launchers.

- The main difference between Project 949 'Granat / Antei' and Project 885 'Yasen', consists in (Yasen's) ability, to strike with new supersonic cruise missiles on coastal structures, not only on battleship orders.

- As to your question, - (who will escort Project 955 Borei), - the answer is very simple: modern Russian nuclear submersible fleet, consists of 5 types of the subs:

As you can see, the (d) and (e) classes, should be considered as a 'small serie' ones, and mostly experimental, or special-task, ships. So, the main classes are three: SSBNs, attacking SSNs of 'aircraft-carrier / coastal installations killer' class, and attacking SSNs of 'hunter-killer' class.

The last class, designated above as (c), intended both for hunting on enemy subs, and FOR ESCORTING first two classes: i.e., both Boreis and Yasens, will be escorted by attacking SSNs, mostly of 671 / 971 Projects. The latest project (971) is 'ultra-low noisy', so it's a good companion for Boreis / Yasens.

Work began in 1992 at Sevmashpredpriyatiye, Severodvinshk on lead boat of this class but all work ended in1996 due to funding constraints. Rapid paced construction began again in 2003-4 in an attempt to finish the boat but slowed (stopped?) once again due to the priority construction of the Borey class. Doubts persist this class will be completed.

Any details on the [12 supersonic cruise missiles in dedicated launchers]?

Most of this came from “RIA Novosti”. Any opinions as to the accuracy of this information?

Thanks for the link. If I read my translation correctly, it appears this project is still faced with significant challenges. However if the Borey-class can make it to blue water with all the monetary delays and technical issues it faced, perhaps so can the “Severodvinsk”. Time will tell. I appreciate your comments.

> Any details on the [12 supersonic cruise missiles in dedicated launchers]?

As you can see from the link above, the initial Project 885 planned to accomodate 8 launch tubes - 'dedicated launchers', in the middle of sub's hull.

But, some sources tell about 10 or even 12 launch tubes on the following mods of Project 885 'Granay'. And, as you can see from the picture, length of the 'Granay' hull, really allow adding a pair or two launch tubes.

Again, there's a rumors that EVERY launch tube will accomodate 3 OTR 'Onix' - a new class of supersonic cruise missiles with ability to strike on ship orders and coastal installations.

So, the total quantity of multifunctional missiles, on the board of 'Granay', should be considered as 24 for 8-launchers mod, 30 for 10-launchers mod, and 36 for 12-launchers mod.

Another interesting rumors tells that launchers of 'Yasen' will be really universal, i.e. it will be able to accomodate NOT ONLY single type of 'Onix' missiles, but a variety of types of the missiles, including sub-sonic cruise missiles with flight range up to 5000 km...

- Second, you declare that 'Photos of the Dolgorukiy have shown reliability of these pictures'...

- So, what of the above positions are yours?

By the way: I do believe that the 'Net pics' of Dolgorukiy are in good correlation with a real sub.

But, this correlation shows that some information in media / Net, could be trustful...

As to previous theme on enlargement of the 'Yasen' hull' lenght, with installing additional launchers, - I do believe this can take place in the following mods of this sub.

This is just a logical analogue of the situation with 'Borei' - as you know, some sources tell that the first Project 955 sub will accomodate 12 launch tubes, as well as the following ships - 16 launchers.

The same situation with number of the launch tubes, take place earlier, for example, at some Delta's...

Hey guys, Yasen had been described as a “Schuka-C” like vessel, designed to be a truly multi-task submarine. So given its dimensions, it will hardly load 40+ missiles. The most recurrent description states that will have 8 silos with 3 tubes, thus raising a total number of 24 missiles plus the ones than can be launched from torpedo-tubes.

It is worth noting that Masorin claimed that it will be finished next year (by “finishing” we must assume “moved to the dry-dock”) and that the long construction period was mainly caused by the complex technologies to be blended on it. Apparently the “Belgorod” was killed (L) to finish the Severodvinsk.

From RIA Novosti article on 20/07/06, Sergei Ivanov, then Defense Minister, stated the funds drawn from the decision not to finish the “Belgorod” would be used instead to complete the overhaul of the “Admiral Nakhimov”. Of course, any funds freed within the defense budget could have been redirected to the “Severodvinsk” project, just a footnote to these discussions. I also suspect 8 vertical tubes will be the ultimate configuration. How many tons do we think this boat will displace? If the scale of the drawing is reasonably accurate, this submarine will be 12-13,000 tons (submerged) easily. The Soviet Union, and now Russia, has traditionally shied away from a “multi-task” submarine in favor of specific purpose boats. While I realize naval resources are slim, I’m not convinced this particular submarine is in the Russian Navy’s best long-term interest. Understand, this is only my opinion and I mean no disparagement. The “Severodvinsk” doesn’t appear to be a more capable replacement for the Oscar II in the strike warfare mission or the Akula II in the anti-submarine role. Maybe I’m wrong on both counts, but I don’t see this submarine escorting the Borey’s to sea. I do think this submarine would be an excellent blue-water commercial raider but I’m not sure this parallels the Russian Navy’s maritime strategy. Thougnts?

The P-800 Oniks (Yakhont) SS-N-26 is an impressive missile no doubt. Two questions, is this missile liquid fueled? I understand the ramjet technology uses kerosene liquid fuel. And, with a range of only 300km or so, how is that a better military solution than the P-700 (SS-N-19) in attacking shipping?

Frank, Yasen was not designed as a replacement of “Oscar-II”. It was to be the follow on of Schuka-B (“Akula” series) with expanded missions but also with betters anti-submarine capabilities (the first Russian spherical sonar, much improved sensors of other type, data fusion techniques, etc). Plans about the follow on of “Oscars” were cancelled in early 90s. Now with the current reality, a reduced fleet of “Oscars” (6?) will live some more years and a few (3?) Yasen will be built. Afterwards, supposedly, the small SSN will come (now in VERY early conceptual and design stages).

Sounds like a good naval construction plan given today’s priorities and budgets.

The “Severodvinsk” (Yasen class) will be a good bridge project until the new class of small SSN is ready for production. The most important thing is to continually be building submarines to retain the industrial base necessary to sustain the submarine construction industry itself. The Royal Navy has gone through a construction nightmare with its Astute-class because they forgot this lesson. You can’t just quit building submarines for a decade and expect to start a program again without issues. Big issues.

Antey submarines were designed with a very specific purpose: to shadow and eventually attack US battle groups centred on Nimitz carriers. Granay not. They have a substantive capability to do this but also have other missions into account, like i.e. land attack. The “universal silos” were designed with a multi-task profile in mind. You can change the profile of weapons loaded to adjust to several missions. This was the original idea.
Antey, been specialized in a single role seems to have a better anti-carrier potential. I.e it have even more “punch” than the Kirov cruisers.

The Masorin statement about the "Sev"
--------------------------
According to the Admiral the submarine Navy has “three basic directions - strategic, rocket and subs of smaller displacement, with the primary goal of anti sub actions, which is protection against strike forces”. “So far the design bureau did not deal with such projects, but this class of a submarine is sure to be commissioned with the Navy”, - the Commander stated. As he emphasized "we have similar subs, but they will leave, and instead of them it is necessary to build new". We have time – about 10 years”, - he added. These statements were made in the context of answering the questions regarding the expected commission of the project 855 Yasen sub named Severodvinsk (expected next year).

"In 2008 there will be the start of the commissioning of the nuclear submarines of the fourth generation. Then will go further. I would not be like to stick to specific dates. We have terms, all is certain. The industry promises all to finish in target dates", - Mr. Masorin made it clear that he does not expect technological or financial problems.

Answering the question about the reasons for the long (10 years) construction of a boat, he said: "Because the sub is very complicated, there are too much new systems, weapons. The more new in a sub, the more difficult it is to build ". The Commander emphasized that "Severodvinsk" is much more complicated that than another submarine under construction on "Sevmash", strategic carrier "Yuri Dolgoruky". "Severodvinsk has both, more diverse arms and more diverse tactics".

The American naval historian Norman Friedman wrote an interesting publication on the Oscar (Project 949 Antey-class) submarine and its capabilities. The most interesting conclusions were not about the 24 P-700/SS-N-19 Granit/Shipwreck missile system but the satellites designed to cue the missiles. The system had a dedicated satellite constellation that provided ocean surveillance, communications, and target control. It was reported the Admiralty in Moscow could actually provide targeting information from the satellite system to a patrolling Oscar and farther provide terminal guidance to the SS-N-19 missile remotely if the target adjusted its position while the missiles were in flight. At least that was the theory.

Curious about one thing. If the new “Onix” is deployed in a three missile configuration in a single launch tube, can they be fired one at a time or must they be fired as a salvo?

> It was reported the Admiralty in Moscow could actually provide targeting information from the satellite system to a patrolling Oscar and farther provide terminal guidance to the SS-N-19 missile remotely if the target adjusted its position while the missiles were in flight.

- Something like this. Usually, 'Granits' self-targets on the terminal part of their trajectory, but initial targeting as well as corrections 'on the fly', has just one purpose: to lead the attacking order of the missiles, to the order of ships, at distance, where intellectual 'self-targeting' of the missile, works in it's best.

- Also, the 'Granits', launched in salvo, capable to exchange the information between each other (i.e., capable to transfer some tactical information from one missile in attacking order, to another in it).

> The most important thing is to continually be building submarines to retain the industrial base necessary to sustain the submarine construction industry itself.

Yes, we've learn this lesson on another story: when US congress in 1990s, decided to fund building of additional two 'Seawolf' class subs, - after the first sub of this class was built and show it expensiveness, - just 'not to destruct' the sub-branch of US shipbuilding industry, able to built subs of such hi-tech class...

The rumors concering the long range (maybe navalized kh-101) that might be armed the project 885 are from "Wikipedia". If you search there you will find that they said , probably the submarine will be armed with Granat missiles or Kh-101, and surely Onyx. Look here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graney_class_submarine

As for the Onyx and Granit, I believe that Onyx is a "smaller" version of Granit with better electronics and limited range. Onyx is also offered for export but Granit is totaly and clearly a Russian missile because nobody will ever think about exporting the Granit P-700. Note that Onyx is a failure because even India prefered to use it as a basis for its new missile the "cousin" of Onyx the Brahmoc. Brahmoc is more successful missile with heavier warhead and land attack capability in shore targets. I believe that Onyx is more "economical" than the Granit and due to its smaller size any vessel could carry much more Onyxs in place of Granit. Imagine how many Onyxes the "admiral Nakhimov" missile cruiser could carry in place of Granits!! At least 30 of them! But I believe that Ad. Masorin is a complete idiot because he wants to scrap the 2 Kirov class cruisers (the first 2 of the class), and I dont know why he dont want rto modernize the by putting on them Universal VLS. Imagine a "Kirov" class cruiser operating as semy strategic platform by carrying massive number of Grannat cruise missiles or even better Kh-101! Is possible for "Admiral Nakhimov" to receive after the modernization process long range cruise missiles? As for the project 885 "Yasen" I also believe as Frank Shuler sais that the Hole program is completely dead. Even the first of the class if will be launched it will be a miracle!! Finally do you know if the navy plans to built new multirole destroyers or only the frigates of project 22350??

Did not the “Petr Velikiy” go into “major overhaul” before the recent move of the “Admiral Nakhimov” to the shipyard for refurbishment? If memory serves, the work was to include nuclear refueling and “major systems work”. It would be most interesting to see what weapons and electronic systems were added to the “Petr Velikiy” during this refit. That would give us the best indication as to the work to be preformed on the “Admiral Nakhimov” and what capabilities she will bring back to the fleet. Is my memory correct here on the “Petr Velikiy”?

The "Pyotr Veliki" officially entered the Nothern fleet in 1996, and "Ad. Nakhimov" was operational since 1998. A rumor sais that after "Ad.Nakhimov" "P.Veliki" will be modernized. But all the official statements say no details and specific missile system that will replace the Granit ASuW missile system. I wish Nakhimov to receive land attack capability, with Granats.

I share your curiosity as to what the "Admiral Nakhimov" will look like after its refit. Remember, just as important as any new missile systems will be the installation of modernized electronics, computers and sonar systems.

It’s hard for a Russian Admiral to fly his pennant from a submarine, (smile)
When the "Admiral Nakhimov" goes back to sea, regardless of armament, she will do so as a symbol. Her true role will be as a flagship and her purpose will be to project Russian naval prestige throughout the world. At the height of Soviet naval power, and with four Kirov nuclear cruisers in the fleet, the Kremlin could never keep even one ship on constant deployment. The Kirov’s are a complicated and maintenance intensive warship. However, all that said, what a powerful and graceful ship; a true asset to the Russian Navy.

I don't know why you hate so much the Kirovs, but I deeply believe that the subs are not the key solution for every factor and for every need of the navy. Kirovs have the ability "due to VLS" to be modernized and the best thing that Ad. Masorin has to do is to introduce a true universal VLS like the MK-41 in the modernized Nakhimov. It will be totaly wrong if such a huge like Nakhimov will be armed with Yakhonts only. It is absolute need the Kirovs to be rearmed also with nuclear/conversional land attack missiles as the Kh-55 & Kh 101/2, and to be strategic platforms as the Tu-160s and 95s. As for the project 885 SSGNs, if the hole project will have future I believe that Granays should be doubled roled. Antiship/land attack and Hunter killer duties too. A new huter killer class is not nessecary. Nessecary is the continue of project 885 in up to 20 units, in order to replace both Aculas, Sierras, and Victors. Oscars should stay at the navy for one more dacate or more. We need one class with great numbers not lot of classes with on or two vessels each!! Look at the US Los Angeles SSNs is one class with over fifty units!!! Also a new missile multirole destroyer like the US Arleigh Burge class of over 8000t, for replacing both Sovremmenyys and Udaloys is an absolute need too. I believe that the project 22350 new frigate will be a complete fealure, and I don;t know why should be considered usefull such a vessel. A 4500t small frigate is the project 22350, and the second one of this class is never started to be constructed. If they are planning according to official statements to built 20 of them I wonder when the 20th unit will enter the navy . In 2100? I believe that all the 4 Kirovs should be requiped and totaly modernized, because they are valuable vessels, and nuclear powered and that means unlimited range, and no need for refuling, and thay have at least 15-25 year life to spend. Let me bring at your mind the US aircraft carriers like the CVN 65 which have almost 50 years in service!! Somewhere I read that the new CG(X)future US cruisers might be nuclear powered. With all these thoughts I want to say that is shame for Masorin to scrap vesseles like the Admiral Lazarev wich joined the navy in 1984 and stopped in 1991. Such valuable vessel had 7 year service, the navy spended a huge amount of funds to built this magnificent cruiser for only seven year service!
Do you know what is gonna happen with Nakhimov? What will be the new missiles that will replace Granits? Only Onyxs or land attack missiles too? When the project 885 new SSN will be lauched? Is been cancelled or not?